Monday, July 01, 2013

The
constructs of individualism and collectivism represent the most
broadly used dimensions of cultural variability for cross-cultural comparison. In individualistic (IND) cultures, people
tend to prefer independent relationships to others and to subordinate the goals
of their ingroups to their own personal goals. In collectivistic (COL)
cultures, in contrast, individuals tend to prefer interdependent relationships
to others and to subordinate their personal goals to those of their ingroups. The key distinction involves the extent
to which one defines the self in relation to others. The focus is on whether
the self is defined as autonomous and unique or seen as inextricably and
fundamentally embedded within a larger social network. This distinction has
also been referred to as egocentric versus sociocentric selves (Shweder &
Bourne,1982), or independence vs interdependence.In
sum, the distinctions between IND and COL societies, and independent and
interdependent self-construals, are crucial to the cross-cultural
understanding of consumer behavior. Indeed, whereas the 1980s were labeled the
decade of individualism/collectivism in cross-cultural psychology, similar distinctions represent the dominant structural
approach in cross-cultural consumer research in 1990s and 2000s. The studies to
be reviewed in this chapter offer a wealth of evidence that these cultural
classifications have fundamental implications for consumption-related
outcomes.

Expanding the Set of Cultural Dimensions

The
nature and meaning of IND and COL (or of independent and interdependent
self-construals) appear to vary across cultural, institutional, gender, and
ethnic lines. Although the breadth of the INDCOL constructs lends integrative
strengths, further refinement of these categories holds the potential to
enhance prediction of consumer behavior.

The
Horizontal/Vertical Distinction: Which additional cultural
categories offer value in theprediction
of cross-cultural consumer behavior? Within the INDCOL framework, Triandis and
his colleagues have recently introduced a further
distinction between societies that are horizontal (valuing equality) and
those that are vertical (emphasizing hierarchy). The horizontal/vertical
distinction emerges from the observation that American or British individualism
differs from, say, Norwegian or Danish individualism in much the same way that
Japanese or Korean collectivism differs from the collectivism of the Israeli
kibbutz. Specifically, in vertical individualist societies (U.S.,Great Britain, France), people
tend to be concerned with improving their individual status and distinguishing
themselves from others via competition. In contrast, in horizontal
individualist societies (HI; e.g., Sweden, Norway, Australia), where people
prefer to view themselves as equal to others in status, the focus is on
expressing one’s uniqueness, capability, and self-reliance. In vertical
collectivist societies (Japan, Korea, India), people focus on
fulfilling obligations to others, and on enhancing the status of their
ingroups in competition with outgroups, even when that entails sacrificing
their own personal goals. In horizontal collectivist societies (like exemplified
historically by the Israeli kibbutz), the focus is on sociability, benevolence,
and interdependence with others in an egalitarian context.

When such distinctions are taken into account, however, it becomes apparent that the societies chosen to represent IND and COL cultural syndromes in consumer research have almost exclusively been vertically oriented. Specifically, the modal comparisons are between the United States (VI) and any of a number of Pacific Rim countries (VC). It may be argued, therefore, that much of what is known about consumer behavior in individualistic and collectivistic societies reflects vertical forms of these syndromes and may not generalize, for example, to comparisons between Sweden (HI) and Israel (HC) or other sets of horizontal cultures. As an example, conformity in product choice, as examined by Kim and Markus (1999), may be a tendency specific to VC cultures, in which deference to authority and to ingroup wishes is stressed. Much lower levels of conformity may be observed in HC cultures, which emphasize sociability but not deference. Thus, it may be inappropriate to ascribe differences in consumers’ conformity between Korea (VC) and the United States (VI) solely to the role of IND/COL or independence/interdependence, because such conformity might not be prevalent in horizontal societies. In particular, levels of product conformity in HC contexts might not exceed those in HI contexts.

Predicting new consumer psychology phenomena

Several
recent studies examining the implications of this horizontal/vertical cultural
distinction have provided evidence for its value as a predictor of new consumer
psychology phenomena and as a basis for refining the understanding of known
phenomena. For instance,
Gürhan-Canli and Maheswaran (2000) demonstrated that the tendency to favor products
from one’s own country over foreign products (a country-of-origin effect)
emerged more strongly in Japan (a VC culture) than in the United States (a VI
culture). This fits well with a conceptualization of collectivists as being
oriented toward their ingroups. However, mediational analyses using individual
consumers’ self-rated cultural values indicated that only the vertical
dimension of IND and COL accounted for the country-of-origin effects in Japan.
In other words, the collectivistic tendency to favor one’s own country’s
products appeared to be driven by cultural values that stress hierarchy, competition, and deference to ingroup wishes, not by values that stress interdependence more generally.

In
line with this, research suggests that advertising messages with themes that
emphasize status, prestige, hierarchy, and distinction may be more prevalent
and persuasive in vertical cultural contexts.
Such advertisements also appear to be generally more persuasive for those with
a vertical cultural orientation, and may be inappropriate for those with a
horizontal one. Shavitt, Zhang, and Johnson (2006) asked U.S. respondents to
write advertisements that they personally would find persuasive. The extent to
which the ad appeals that they wrote emphasized status themes was positively correlated
with respondents’ vertical cultural orientation (and negatively correlated with
their horizontal cultural orientation). Moreover, content analyses of magazine
advertisements in several countries suggested that status-oriented themes of
hierarchy, luxury, prominence, and distinction were generally more prevalent
in societies presumed to have vertical cultural profiles (Korea, Russia)
than a horizontal cultural profile (Denmark).

Last but not least,the horizontal/vertical distinction
provides a basis for refining our understanding of individualism/collectivism
effects. Their studies showed that individualism/collectivism differences in
socially desirable responding appear to be mediated at the individual level by
horizontal (but not vertical) IND and COL values. These findings shed light on
the motivational drivers linking culture with socially desirable response
styles. The
main point here is that these dimensions of cultural
comparison have multiple implications for advertising and marketing processes.
Attention to a broader set of cultural dimensions will not only expand the
range of independent variables in our research, but will also prompt
consideration of cultural consequences hitherto unexamined in cross-cultural
studies (based on publication by Sharon Shavitt-University of Illinois & Angela Lee, Northwestern University).